Wirbelwind is no longer any fun...

[Shuffler]

Since the powers that be caved to the vulch tards and pulled the teeth on the wirble, you would at least think they would make it alittle tougher. When one .50 cal round takes out the turret. However it takes multiple 20mm rounds from the wirble to take down an aluminum plane. The least they could do is make it harder to take out the turret. This is a bad change.

The turret is open topped. Shells going into there and bouncing around can be devastating.

[FBnutz]

See Rule #6

[Saxman]

As has been said:

The turret traverse on the WW was modelled incorrectly before. And why are you complaining? You still have a historically inaccurate rate and volume of fire to play with (WWs could NOT sustain fire from all four guns the way they can in the game due to how they were loaded).

[Dinan]

GOOOOOOOOOOD RIDDENS to fast turrets!

 

[Ack-Ack]

Since the powers that be caved to the vulch tards and pulled the teeth on the wirble, you would at least think they would make it alittle tougher. When one .50 cal round takes out the turret. However it takes multiple 20mm rounds from the wirble to take down an aluminum plane. The least they could do is make it harder to take out the turret. This is a bad change.

Its an open turret, its not out of the realm of possibility of a single .50 cal hitting one of the crew in the open turret and killing them.  HTC didn't cave into anyone, they fixed a problem with the turret turn rate that was unrealistic until the change. 

ack-ack

[thndregg]

Hitech & crew model it according to pertinant data found, I'm sure.

[CDR1]

I think balance is a good idea, no point in having non perked planes or gv's that unhinge the game play. Next thing to fix is the auto ack. At D6.0 there is no way the AI gunner can know which way I am going to turn, The shells have a fixed patch once fired and that correction takes time. the fly by wire 5" shells are just plain stupid and affect game play. One other thing, proximity fuses did not enter service until mid 42, they should be deleted in EW and perhaps MW, it would be an interesting experiment as long as bomber accuracy was addressed too. No one every hit a capital ship with four engined bombers, almost all hits were dive bombers and torps.
Over all I think good tactics should be allowed to produce good results.

[68ZooM]

It's gun movements are slower, but you put two of them together and use constant Vox to call out the EA, man o man we had a blast.... me and a squadie had over 12 kills protecting our spawn point, just adapt how you fight with it thats all.

[wojo71]

   No worries, we (L.T.A.R.) will work out some new tactics  and everything will go back to normal just like after every other change.








 

[68ZooM]

   No worries, we (L.T.A.R.) will work out some new tactics  and everything will go back to normal just like after every other change.


Were doing that right now, see above post.... its just like flying you need a wingman to watch your back, just apply that to the wurble.... travel as one = die                            travel as 2 or 3 = killing machines








 

[Kermit de frog]

 

 

[Strip]

It would be nice to have 5" with contact fuse shells....

Would bring the 5" back in to some of the early time-period scenarios perhaps?

[AWwrgwy]

No one every hit a capital ship with four engined bombers, almost all hits were dive bombers and torps.

No one ever bombed a capital ship with a 4-engined bomber from 10,000 feet, or lower....

I do agree with you, however.


wrongway

[Soulyss]

No one every hit a capital ship with four engined bombers, almost all hits were dive bombers and torps.

The ability of high altitude heavy bombers to hit a maneuvering warship was greatly exaggerated historically.  Their increased effectiveness in AH may not be a result of made modeling by HTC.  There are a lot of factors that they simply have no control over.  They can model accurate speeds by both the bomber and the ship, as well as accurate speeds of the bombs along their flight path but what they can't model is the fact that our cartoon bombardiers have a lot more practice in hitting those moving targets.  There are bomber pilots who know exactly how much to lead and offset their drops to hit a CV from a given alt regardless of what the ship captain does (assuming there is even someone on or near the CV trying to swing it out of harms way). 

[batch]

The ability of high altitude heavy bombers to hit a maneuvering warship was greatly exaggerated historically.  Their increased effectiveness in AH may not be a result of made modeling by HTC.  There are a lot of factors that they simply have no control over.  They can model accurate speeds by both the bomber and the ship, as well as accurate speeds of the bombs along their flight path but what they can't model is the fact that our cartoon bombardiers have a lot more practice in hitting those moving targets.  There are bomber pilots who know exactly how much to lead and offset their drops to hit a CV from a given alt regardless of what the ship captain does (assuming there is even someone on or near the CV trying to swing it out of harms way). 

none of what you said has anything whatsoever to do with bombing CVs in AH vs real life........... real life didnt have F6 easy calibration..... nuff said